And god was the word

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said to WorshippingJesus:

Quote

Keith, You have not shown me one translation where your scholars have translated it that way…don't you think there is a reason for that?  Or are you above the scholars?

WorshippingJesus replied to Kathi:

Quote

Hi Kathi\ It is the scholars that say that the litteral translation of John 1:1 is “God was the Word”. But what is the difference Kathi? “And the Word was God”. You are the one that has to read into it more than what it says!

To All,
Our sister Kathi wants some evidence from scholarship that the literal reading of John 1:1 is “And God was the Word.” I provide following evidence from scholarship for your consideration,

Quote

In this verse the Word is expressly affirmed to be God. The Word existed already “in the beginning”…, which is a way of denoting the eternity that is unique to God. John states clearly, “the Word was God.” Some have observed that the word translated “God” here has no definite article, and argued on this basis that it means “a god” rather than “God.” This is a misunderstanding; the article is omitted because of the word order in the Greek sentence (the predicate “God” has been placed first for emphasis). The new testament never endorses the idea of “a god,” an expression that implies polytheism and is in sharp conflict with the consistent monotheism of the Bible. In the New testament the Greek word for “God” occurs often without the definite article, depending on the requirements of Greek grammar (Reformation Study Bible notes on John 1:1, p. 1658, Nelson publishers)

The scholars do not translate it as “God was the Word.” But they acknowledge that the predicate “God” is placed first for emphasis which means that the Greek reader would have read it that way. Therefore, the reading “and God was the Word” is a literal reading though not preferable to the English grammarian. It means that the Word was God (with emphasis).

The note mentioned also that the Greek word “God” often occurs without the definite article. An example of this is in verse 6 where it says that John the Baptist was sent from God. Should we then conclude that John the baptist was sent from “a god” because the definite article is not present?

thinker

[Paladin]

Quote (thethinker @ June 26 2009,11:55)

Lightenup said to WorshippingJesus: Quote Keith, You have not shown me one translation where your scholars have translated it that way…don't you think there is a reason for that?  Or are you above the scholars? WorshippingJesus replied to Kathi: Quote Hi Kathi\ It is the scholars that say that the litteral translation of John 1:1 is “God was the Word”. But what is the difference Kathi? “And the Word was God”. You are the one that has to read into it more than what it says! To All, Our sister Kathi wants some evidence from scholarship that the literal reading of John 1:1 is “And God was the Word.” I provide following evidence from scholarship for your consideration, Quote In this verse the Word is expressly affirmed to be God. The Word existed already “in the beginning”…, which is a way od denoting the eternity that is unique to God. John states clearly, “the Word was God.” Some have observed that the word translated “God” here has no definite article, and argued on this basis that it means “a god” rather than “God.” This is a misunderstanding; the article is omitted because of the word order in the Greek sentence (the predicate “God” has been placed first for emphasis). The new testament never endorses the idea of “a god,” an expression that implies polytheism and is in sharp conflict with the consistent monotheism of the Bible. In the New testament the Greek word for “God” occurs often without the definite article, depending on the requirements of Greek grammar (Reformation Study Bible notes on John 1:1, p. 1658, Nelson publishers) The scholars do not translate it as “God was the Word.” But they acknowledge that the predicate “God” is placed first for emphasis which means that the Greek reader would have read it that way. Therefore, the reading “and God was the Word” is a literal reading though not preferable to the English grammarian. The note mentioned also that the Greek word “God” often occurs without the definite article. An example of this is in verse 6 where it says that John the Baptist was sent from God. Should we then conclude that John the baptist was sent from “a god” because the definite article is not present? thinker

Why will you neither aknowledge nor refute, but continue to post as though you were not told differently?

Quote

In this verse the Word is expressly affirmed to be God. The Word existed already “in the beginning”…, which is a way od denoting the eternity that is unique to God.

John wrote the apokalypse in 69 a.d. just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d.

John spoke of Jesus' “new name” – “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my [onoma kainon] new name.” [Rev 3:12]

2537 kainos
Meaning: 1) new 1a) as respects form 1a1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn 1b) as respects substance 1b1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.

If it was an unknown, unused, recently made unworn name in 69 a.d., what makes you think it was from eternity?

I have told you repeatedly, John's “beginning” of 1:1 is NOT the beginning of creation, but the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus backs this up in his rhetoric.

John 15: 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
27 And ye also shall bear witness, because YE HAVE BEEN WITH ME FROM THE BEGINNING.

John 16:4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you AT THE BEGINNING, BECAUSE I WAS WITH YOU.

You cannot refute it, why will you continue to not aknowledge it?

[KangarooJack]

Paladin,
We have been over this before and my reply will always be the same. Verse 10 says that the world came in to being through Him and that the world knew Him not. The world that was ignorant of Him was NOT the new creation. And please stop trying to pass yourself off as a scholar of the bblical languages. We know you have no credentials.

thinker

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Paladin @ June 25 2009,20:25)

Quote (thethinker @ June 26 2009,11:55) Lightenup said to WorshippingJesus: Quote Keith, You have not shown me one translation where your scholars have translated it that way…don't you think there is a reason for that?  Or are you above the scholars? WorshippingJesus replied to Kathi: Quote Hi Kathi\ It is the scholars that say that the literal translation of John 1:1 is “God was the Word”. But what is the difference Kathi? “And the Word was God”. You are the one that has to read into it more than what it says! To All, Our sister Kathi wants some evidence from scholarship that the literal reading of John 1:1 is “And God was the Word.” I provide following evidence from scholarship for your consideration, Quote In this verse the Word is expressly affirmed to be God. The Word existed already “in the beginning”…, which is a way of denoting the eternity that is unique to God. John states clearly, “the Word was God.” Some have observed that the word translated “God” here has no definite article, and argued on this basis that it means “a god” rather than “God.” This is a misunderstanding; the article is omitted because of the word order in the Greek sentence (the predicate “God” has been placed first for emphasis). The new testament never endorses the idea of “a god,” an expression that implies polytheism and is in sharp conflict with the consistent monotheism of the Bible. In the New testament the Greek word for “God” occurs often without the definite article, depending on the requirements of Greek grammar (Reformation Study Bible notes on John 1:1, p. 1658, Nelson publishers) The scholars do not translate it as “God was the Word.” But they acknowledge that the predicate “God” is placed first for emphasis which means that the Greek reader would have read it that way. Therefore, the reading “and God was the Word” is a literal reading though not preferable to the English grammarian. The note mentioned also that the Greek word “God” often occurs without the definite article. An example of this is in verse 6 where it says that John the Baptist was sent from God. Should we then conclude that John the baptist was sent from “a god” because the definite article is not present? thinker Why will you neither aknowledge nor refute, but continue to post as though you were not told differently? Quote In this verse the Word is expressly affirmed to be God. The Word existed already “in the beginning”…, which is a way of denoting the eternity that is unique to God. John wrote the apokalypse in 69 a.d. just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. John spoke of Jesus' “new name” – “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my [onoma kainon] new name.” [Rev 3:12] 2537 kainos Meaning:  1) new 1a) as respects form 1a1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn 1b) as  respects substance 1b1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.   If it was an unknown, unused, recently made unworn name in 69 a.d., what makes you think it was from eternity? I have told you repeatedly, John's “beginning” of 1:1 is NOT the beginning of creation, but the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus backs this up in his rhetoric. John 15: 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because YE HAVE BEEN WITH ME FROM THE BEGINNING. John 16:4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you AT THE BEGINNING, BECAUSE I WAS WITH YOU. You cannot refute it, why will you continue to not aknowledge it?

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ June 25 2009,20:25)

Why will you neither aknowledge nor refute, but continue to post as though you were not told differently?

We have refuted it, and you are not listening.

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and “his name is the Word of God“. Rev 19:13

Jesus has many names, but there is nowhere in Johns passage above that states the “Word of God” is the “new' (kainos) name.

John didn't say “He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and “his (kainos) name is the Word of God“.

So to claim this to be so is ambiguous, and it is in no way  proof of John’s intent in his Prologue in John 1.

John never uses the word “kainos” anywhere in John 1. In fact John only uses the word “kainos” two times in the Gospel and it has nothing to do with the New name.

It is obvious to the honest reader that John is speaking of the Genesis creation in the prologue.

But even if what you say is true then you would be acknowledging Jesus as God of the New Creation which is still Polytheism or Henotheism!

WJ

[KangarooJack]

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

It is obvious to the honest reader that John is speaking of the Genesis creation in the prologue. But even if what you say is true then you would be acknowledging Jesus as God of the New Creation which is still Polytheism or Henotheism!

WJ,
You are correct. And Paladin has repeatedly evaded the point that verse 10 says that “the world was made by Him and the world knew Him not.” This CANNOT be the new creation. The new creation knows Him and is not ignorant of Him. Trying to get Paladin to deal with verse 10 is like trying to pull teeth.

Isaiah 65-66 says that the new creation is made by Jehovah. Since Paladin says “in the beginning” means the beginning of the new creation, and that it is this creation that Christ made, then Christ is Jehovah. The Scriptures give Paladin no room at all to introduce his theory that Christ is not the creator of the ORIGINAL creation. Sorry Paladin.

thinker

[Paladin]

Quote (thethinker @ June 27 2009,20:25)

WorshippingJesus said: Quote It is obvious to the honest reader that John is speaking of the Genesis creation in the prologue. But even if what you say is true then you would be acknowledging Jesus as God of the New Creation which is still Polytheism or Henotheism! WJ, You are correct. And Paladin has repeatedly evaded the point that verse 10 says that “the world was made by Him and the world knew Him not.” This CANNOT be the new creation. The new creation knows Him and is not ignorant of Him. Trying to get Paladin to deal with verse 10 is like trying to pull teeth. Isaiah 65-66 says that the new creation is made by Jehovah. Since Paladin says “in the beginning” means the beginning of the new creation, and that it is this creation that Christ made, then Christ is Jehovah. The Scriptures give Paladin no room at all to introduce his theory that Christ is not the creator of the ORIGINAL creation. Sorry Paladin. thinker

Why is it you absolutely CANNOT deal with what I actually say?

I DID NOT say “in the beginning” means the beginning of the new creation,”

What I DID say, is John's “in the beginning” is a reference to the beginning of the gospel ministry of Jesus.

Because both you and WJ continue to misrepresent what I say, I will respond to neither of you.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (thethinker @ June 26 2009,20:05)

Paladin, We have been over this before and my reply will always be the same. Verse 10 says that the world came in to being through Him and that the world knew Him not. The world that was ignorant of Him was NOT the new creation. And please stop trying to pass yourself off as a scholar of the bblical languages. We know you have no credentials. thinker

Credentials like the Pharisees had credentials or credentials such as a man who studies the word?

Does a man have to have some letters after his name to be credited with knowledge on a subject?

If so, Jesus and most of his disciples had no crendentials to teach the word of God. They were unlearned in the worldly sense.

We should know better than to judge in the ways of the world. It would certainly lead to less disputes.

Isn´t there a better way?

[KangarooJack]

Quote (t8 @ June 28 2009,00:50)

Quote (thethinker @ June 26 2009,20:05) Paladin, We have been over this before and my reply will always be the same. Verse 10 says that the world came in to being through Him and that the world knew Him not. The world that was ignorant of Him was NOT the new creation. And please stop trying to pass yourself off as a scholar of the bblical languages. We know you have no credentials. thinker Credentials like the Pharisees had credentials or credentials such as a man who studies the word? Does a man have to have some letters after his name to be credited with knowledge on a subject? If so, Jesus and most of his disciples had no crendentials to teach the word of God. They were unlearned in the worldly sense. We should know better than to judge in the ways of the world. It would certainly lead to less disputes. Isn´t there a better way?

t8,
If a man does not have credentials in the biblical languages then he must list his sources. This is called being transparent. Why did you not comment on Hebrews 1:10?

thinker

[Author]

Posts